Marines new rifle - rant

Status
Not open for further replies.
For the cost of the XM3, they should have bought an off-the-shelf AI-AW with the barrel length they wanted and spent the extra on a better scope (S&B).
Click to expand...


The AI isn't built in the U.S., as far as i know, and the XM3 seems to address the issues with the m40A3 that arose from the Target shooting mafia's input on the project (weight, prone only stock, no suppressor).

The SASS is, when you get right down to it, a spotters weapon, and i doubt it will suppress as well or be as accurate as the Xm3.

IBA makes first rate equipment, and they really don't deserve to be dogpiled like this.
 
The AI isn't built in the U.S., as far as i know, and the XM3 seems to address the issues with the m40A3 that arose from the Target shooting mafia's input on the project (weight, prone only stock, no suppressor).
Click to expand...

The XM3 is fundamentally a Remington action bedded into a conventional stock, with rails added where needed for the NV optics and so forth. The scope rail is bolted to the receiver just like every other Remington 700. It's an $8200 rifle and the promo photo shows it needs a $40 Eagle Stock to give it the right comb height. You've got to be kidding me.

When you break it down, it (and the M24 and M40) are individually-gunsmithed rifles built on a receiver which is a commercial copy of a copy of a Mauser action designed before the year 1900. The stock has to be individually bedded to the receiver. Then a bunch of features are added to make modern accessories work.

My point is that it does not take advantage of any of the things we've learned about manufacturing and improved rifle designed in the last 30 years. Fundamentally, it's a commercial sporter action with thousands of dollars of custom work done to it to make it halfway acceptable. And it costs $8300 per copy. The AI-AW was designed from the ground up as a sniper weapons platform in 1980 (almost 30 years ago - by now we should be able to do better), totally eclipses the XM3 in terms of design and manufacturability, and is half the cost of the XM3.

-z
 
BTW I never wanted to suggest that snipers shouldn't get top-notch equipment, or that these aren't the best rifles for the mission. I don't know. Zak knows a lot more, above.

I sure don't believe, blindly, that any given military expenditure is necessarily optimal, just because the decision was made.

And snipers save lives. Lots of lives.

However, yesterday, when I once again saw a couple of young Marines tooling down the highway in a Humvee, I wondered yet again if the difference between the price of the things and commercial Jeep Wranglers in quantity (like ICE uses), and the extra fuel cost of driving the big beast on paved roads around LA Metro, couldn't have been better used on an armored Humvee in Iraq or Afghanistan a few years ago.

Maybe the whole vehicle thing makes perfect sense from every perspective, but I'm not blindly trusting of military spending priorities when people like John Murtha are involved in big money decisions. Not by a long shot.
 
The AI-AW was designed from the ground up as a sniper weapons platform in 1980 (almost 30 years ago - by now we should be able to do better), totally eclipses the XM3 in terms of design and manufacturability, and is half the cost of the XM3.
Click to expand...

It's also not made in the U.S. The USMC and the army will not adopt a weapon that vital without the ability to make it.

additionally, the stock design on the AI doesn't seem in my opinion to lend itself to shooting from anything but prone. I may be wrong.

It would be nice to field a ground up sniper rifle for the purpose, but modifying things we have laying around means we can get things out the door now, not years from now.
 
$8300 is INSANE for what's fundamentally a custom-built Remington 700. There are better choices out there, and the ideas and technology exist to built a better solution in the US, if that's really required. The USMC didn't seem to have a problem adopting the 3-12x50 S&B.

-z
 
Perhaps the real issue here is that the US Government, despite the documented significance of snipers with accurized, scoped rifles since the Civil War, has never requisitioned the production of a rifle designed for snipers.

Why not? Not enough money in it for big campaign donors?

Seems like the armed forces sure could use one.
 
Zak pretty much confirmed my suspicions.

Let's also remember that it isn't the Marine Corps that is being milked by this hunk of gold with a scope on it, it's US, the tax paying citizens.

That very informed cut and paste from another forum was also very interesting. The summary would appear to be that an 18.5" barrelled sniper rifle is a really stupid idea for long range shooting, especially in 7.62NATO.
 
In the big picture, an extra few thousand dollars per rifle is really nothing within the confines of military/ government spending. I am all for the government pinching pennies, but a few thousand dollars on even a few hundred rifles (how many would they really purchase) is really nothing.
 
In the big picture, an extra few thousand dollars per rifle is really nothing within the confines of military/ government spending. I am all for the government pinching pennies, but a few thousand dollars on even a few hundred rifles (how many would they really purchase) is really nothing.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Compared to the millions of dollars we throw away on not only useless, but actually harmful social programs every year, a few thousand for some primo boomsticks for our grunts is not worth getting excited about. I would welcome more government waste if it benefits the guys on the ground!

P.S. Plus the IBA doesn't need duct tape to get it ready to go into the field, like the AI :neener:
 
are you aware that there are only around 100 of these rifles being made? i have only done a little research i can tell you they want it to be a hush puppy. full length scilencer that envelops he entire barrel(plus some) and a fast twist rate for heavy bullets. oooh ya, that sounds like a short range high priority target kind of rifle to me
 
$8300 is INSANE for what's fundamentally a custom-built Remington 700.
Click to expand...

It is SO nice to see that written by someone that can justifiably be said to "know what he's talking about".

of course i can actually remember when IBA's pricing on their product in general was "Sane". but i digress.

my take (as an uninvolved party and definate outsider) on this issue, is that the XM3 is in no way being seen as "a replacement for the M40A3" but as two things. a testbed for what is to come (and i figure half of it will wind up in the wastebin) and as a limited issue/use weapon for those few situations where it's size and suppression would be most needed, rather than simply convenient.

But mainly i think that the XM3 is mostly marketing hype from IBA. As noted by an earlier post, a few pics Marines shooting your gun (at pendelton from the looks of one shot, on teh IBA site) means you Demonstratd the thing, maybe got a small order out of someone to have it evaluated, NOT that it has or will, go beyond the "Well sir, it's interesting" stage.
 
I'd like to see this rifle go head to head with a suppressed SR25.

The no-compete contract and price are very troubling.
 
ALS, there are any number of manufacturers who could have done it for far cheaper and that are already established. I may not be a rifle manufacturer (are you?) but the facts don't lie and I'm raising the BS flag.
 
Ok I agree lets look at the other TOP sniper rifle manufacture McMillan Bros. By the way only IBA and McMillan rifles are being fielded in Iraq and Afghanistan by our military. I don't know of any other tactical rifle manufacture who's weapons are in the hands of our Military. IBA if you don't know it has a contract for 250 sniper rifles for the U.S. Army bet you didn't know that one. But let me add look at the prices of a McMillan Bros rifle. http://www.mcmfamily.com/pricing_rifle_packages.html

Most of the prices I have seen of these "other" manufactures don't include mount, rings, or scopes on the gun let alone a torque wrench and case for the weapon. That is a difference of around $1600 to $1700 less than the full package from IBA. So compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

Edit: I was talking bolt actions in .308, 300 WM, 338 Lapua's, and .50 BMG.
Yes Knight and Barretts are also being fielded in the war zone.
 
Damn, I guess Barrett and KAC are not issued in your world? Also, are you going to address Zak's points?
 
The XM3 has a bunch of qualities the marine snipers have actually asked for, like a suppressor and useable night vision.

It's stupid, IMHO that there are any sniper rifles out there without suppressors.

It's also irritating that no one here seems to have read the precision shooting article written by Roy Chandler.

Read the article. The man explains exactly why everything on the rifle is done the way it was.
 
And not one person addresses the cost or the fact it's COTS with nothing new or revolutionary at twice the price of an AI that actually is new and revolutionary compared to the Remington 700.
 
Zak a thought just hit me,

Isn't AI out of business??

obviously not a reflection on the quality of their products, but i was under the impression that they'd gone under from a lack of sales.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Marines go to Semi-auto sniper rifle
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
Grump
Grump
D
  • Locked
Marine Corps Sets Sights On More Precise Shooting
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
STW
S
D
  • Locked
Updating the Mosin and AK-74
Replies
5
Views
719
Correia
C
H
  • Locked
New Marine Rifle training
Replies
20
Views
2K
RobMoore
R
D
  • Locked
Marine Corps selects its new Scout Sniper Ballistic Computer
Replies
12
Views
2K
DocUSMCRetired
D
Back
Top